Anyone can claim that. And, in their experience, it might even be true; it might not be, they might be lying or mistaken; but take that bit you linked to, where the claim is that: “There’s only beauty in living in the eternal.”
Again, start by reminding yourself that maybe even someone saying that knows it’s false. But then ask: what if that person only finds beauty that way, while other people find beauty in other ways? So he starts off with something he’s genuinely noticed, but then he starts uselessly running his mouth; is that possible?
He goes on to frame it as a choice: it’s a life like that, or a life where “isolation brings feelings of insecurity, fear and anxiety”. And, again: maybe he’s lying, or something. But is it possible that it truly seemed that way to him, and he’s just too dim to realize that other people might be doing just fine on a different path?
But, near as I can tell, that’s irrelevant. If he thinks it’s relevant, then near as I can tell you should probably rethink what he’s telling you; and if you think it’s relevant, then near as I can tell you should — well, probably rethink a lot of stuff.
I’m trying to put myself in your shoes, here; put yourself in mine, for a moment, so I can get some clue as to why you’d ever mention that point. Picture me on the brink of making pretty much any choice: say I give it a healthy amount of thought, say I nod upon reaching a decision, and say that right then a guy pops in to say, hey, pal, maybe hold up for a moment and reconsider: you’re not factoring in how you’re a product of other things; and nothing, so to speak, stands alone!
Uh, okay: what decision would this get me to reverse? Tell me that story: I was about to do something; but then a staggering new fact got brought to my attention, and so I reversed course. That’d be a heck of a thing, but — what is it?
It’s mostly in regards to how I navigate the world and what can I call “me” (which I guess is like a compass that helps my decision making process easier). If as the link says nothing is my own then I am lost.
Did you read the link though? One thing I wonder a lot is how people aren’t off put by the links I have read. What is it about them that isn’t upended?
That’s not just a flip remark; I’m asking for something specific, so I’ll give you some specifics to respond to. Say I tell you about my plans for the weekend: what I’ll eat for breakfast, how I hope to get in a bit of exercise, whether I’m going to volunteer at a soup kitchen — and maybe I’ll catch a movie at some point, unless I run into an old friend and we wind up having a good long chat or something? Oh, and maybe I’ll donate some blood, after returning a couple of library books?
Not the most interesting life, I’ll grant you; but it’s what I had in mind. So tell me: what linked fact, if brought to my attention, would upend that?
It’s not about the deity is more about the arguments behind what they are saying. Like the Zen Koan that mentions “what was your face before your father and mother were born”. Implying that you are inherently blank or “no-thing” since everything we take to be “us or me” is from somewhere outside of us or inherited, so it isn’t really us. I can’t point to something and say “that is so me”
The types of books, the movie, and what you speak to your friend about, even the nature of the friendship, such things would not take place if there was not a “you” and traits to attribute to that. There would be no compass to help you decide what to do with your day without a “self”.
Okay, but — I’m still here, y’know? And the books are still there, kind of like the movie and the friend and all the other stuff.
To put it another way: say I’m heading to the doctor, to get a shot in the arm. Say, too, that someone says, “hey, don’t you know that hurts?” And I see a guy get a shot in the arm, and he winces and says “gosh, that hurts” — and I think, huh; I don’t want to get hurt! Pain BAD! So I reverse course away from the doctor — but then someone else tells me, “do you not get that suffering a little, from that shot, can keep you from getting sick and suffering WORSE?” And so I think, huh, okay; I guess I’ll turn back around, and get that shot after all!
Or: say I’m subsisting on a junk-food diet, and someone points out the long-term ramifications of passing up healthier — though less-delicious — offerings in favor of empty calories. You get how that could make a guy rethink his choices and maybe start doing the opposite, right?
Or: say a Christian comes to me and says, look, if you don’t change your ways in life, you’ll wind up getting tortured by hellfire in the afterlife; wouldn’t you rather have a heavenly eternity in paradise?
Granted, that one’s never actually worked on me yet; but I can see how it could, because I can see the point of that pitch. That’s what I’m asking: I get how I could change my mind about stuff if you tell me it’s painful, or tell me it’s medicinal; or offer religious claims, instead of nutritional ones; or accuse me of stark hypocrisy; or reveal a way to get rich; or appeal to my compassion; and so on. So what will you say, right before I catch up with an old friend over a good meal, to make me say, “whoa, suddenly there’s no compass; how, then, can I now decide whether to stick with that course of action, or reverse course instead?”
Why would I not still want the same things, with the same traits still in place as I make the same choices? Granted, various other sales pitches could effect a change; but how the heck do you figure this one would work?
I want to just write it off as that, but I can’t deny the logic in it. like how do we define “me” and what makes it up and all that. I want to just say “F it” and move on but again it seems to make sense.
There are people I care about. There are things I enjoy. There’s a whole life I’m in the middle of — and if a guy says stuff that Seems To Make Sense, well, gosh, that sure is great and all, but, again: people I care about and things I enjoy, y’know? All those are still, like, right there.
Say I’m about to smoke a cigarette: if you point out that such a course of action could ruin my health, then, sure, maybe I’ll rethink my decisions and drop that bad habit; but if you instead tell me that nothing is truly me, then — what?
That’s what I’m asking: even if it Seems To Make Sense, then so what?
You’ve been saying the exact same thing for the last five years. It appears that nothing has made an impression on you. Are you still getting anything useful from these threads?
I’m not sure what additional logic besides the obvious biological explanation is required. Our “faces” are all products of genetic combination of our respective biological parents. Any philosophical explanation, religious or otherwise, is superficial justification to give life meaning. Don’t get me wrong, finding meaning in life is important. Especially when it becomes obvious we’re born to a losing battle. But we must fight on for as long as we live. It’s our duty.
Logics are fun. We can devise so many of them to explain anything.
Or rather, to give ourselves comfort, thinking that life has meaning. My cousin’s god worked in mysterious ways by killing her baby, now in her Savior’s arms. Should I strip off her comfort blanket?
I like this: The purpose of life is to find (or create) a purpose. That’s a spiritual or philosophical goal. Biologically, our purpose is to survive and reproduce. All else is gravy.
I don’t think it’s meant to be a literal face but more a remark on the self. The stuff that we like to attribute to “me” is all external and not inherent to us. So how can my like and dislikes be me, how can my responses to stimuli be me especially when such things are only in relation to other stimuli (like the link says that what we take to be our selves is just something in relation to other things, nothing that stands alone). With that being said is anything truly mine? Am I just a collection of stuff that has already happened?
You asked “so what” and in this case the so what is challenging what I take to be me and how I’ve lived and operated in reality up to this point. It’s all based on this “self” that has likes and dislikes, etc.
I dislike the taste of cilantro, and I like the taste of chocolate. And if you slowly and patiently explain to me that such likes and dislikes aren’t truly mine — that they’re not inherent to me, that they’re external, that what I’ve been taking to be a self is just something in relation to other things — okay, for the sake of argument let’s go with that for just a moment; even so: what, then, will happen the next time I taste cilantro and the next time I taste chocolate? Will “dislike” still result in one case? Will “like” still result in the other case? Is that still unchanged?